The day of Adam Lanza's murderous assault on Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mike Rogers said stricter gun control would not be an appropriate response. "The more realistic discussion," said the Republican congressman from Michigan, "is how do we target people with mental illness who use firearms?"

Last week, another Republican congressman, Howard Coble of North Carolina, agreed that "it's more of a mental health problem than a gun problem right now." And last Friday, when the National Rifle Association broke its silence on the Sandy Hook massacre, the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, called for "an active national database of the mentally ill."

Psychiatrically informed policies aimed at controlling people rather than weapons are popular in the wake of mass shootings, especially among those who rightly worry that gun restrictions will unfairly burden law-abiding Americans while failing to prevent future attacks. Yet treating gun violence as "a mental health problem" presents similar dangers.

An "active national database of the mentally ill" clearly would not have stopped Lanza, who used guns legally purchased by his mother. Even if he had bought the guns himself, it appears he would have passed a background check because did not meet the criteria for rejection.

Federal law prohibits gun ownership by anyone who "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution." Neither seems to have been the case with Lanza.

Acquaintances reported that Lanza might have had Asperger's syndrome. That label, which soon won't even count as a mental disorder anymore, is not much more informative than saying he was a shy, socially inept loner (which people who knew him also said).

It seems safe to assume that someone who murders randomly selected first-graders is psychologically abnormal, but that is not the same as saying that a specific "mental illness" explains his behavior. Given the subjective, amorphous nature of psychiatric diagnoses, we might as well say the devil made him do it.

In any event, mental health professionals are notoriously bad at predicting which of the world's many misfits, cranks and oddballs will become violent. "Over 30 years of commentary, judicial opinion and scientific review argue that predictions of danger lack scientific rigor," notes University of Georgia law professor Alexander Scherr in a 2003 Hastings Law Journal article. "The sharpest critique finds that mental health professionals perform no better than chance at predicting violence, and perhaps perform even worse."

So even if the mental-health criteria for rejecting gun buyers (or for commitment) were expanded, there is little reason to think they could distinguish between future Lanzas and people who pose no threat. Survey data from the National Institute of Mental Health indicate that nearly half of all Americans qualify for a psychiatric diagnosis at some point in their lives. That's a pretty wide dragnet.

Should half of us lose our Second Amendment rights, at least for the duration of whatever mental disorder (depression, anxiety, addiction, inattentiveness, etc.) afflicts us? Assuming a prescription for Prozac, Xanax or Adderall is not enough to disqualify someone from owning a gun, what should the standard be?

Even under current law, mental illness can become a label for unconventional political beliefs. Remember Brandon Raub, the Marine Corps veteran who was forced to undergo a psychiatric evaluation in Virginia last summer based on his conspiracy-minded, anti-government Facebook posts?

The malleability of mental illness was also apparent at a 2007 debate among the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination. After seeing a YouTube video in which Jered Townsend of Clio, Mich., asked about gun control and referred to his rifle as "my baby," Joseph Biden said: "If that's his baby, he needs help. ... I don't know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I'm being serious."

So perhaps excessive attachment to your guns should be grounds for taking them away. Biden, by the way, is in charge of formulating the policies the Obama administration will pursue in response to Lanza's horrifying crimes.

I’ve taken part in psychology studies for pay, many because I’m willing to say in the questionnaires that I am conservative.
There are surveys / studies that seek to link political orientation to lower compassion, less sensitivity, lower rationality, seeking authoritarianism, less willing to help others, less charitable, not as open minded. Though I do agree with the TED talk that found that liberals are more likely to be novelty seeking and have a lower disgust threshold.
There is already data and a series of studies seeking to prove that conservatives lack traits liberals prize and consider necessary for a “good” society like tolerance of everything.

Given the historical fact of how despots have used “mental illness” as a way of controlling political opponents, I think this article points out some clear hazards. The simple understanding that life has inherent risks that cannot be controlled to a 100% certainty would be a good start toward sanity for those who become emotional in their inability to understand firearms as just one tool (among many others) for personal security.

7
posted on 12/26/2012 10:31:08 AM PST
by T-Bird45
(It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)

The response to Newtown should simply be mourning. All of the ingredients that allowed these things to take place existed 20, 30, 50 years ago, and throughout human existence. They’ve only started happening with regularity in this country recently. Why is that? I think the answer can be found in this quote by John Adams:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

10
posted on 12/26/2012 10:40:14 AM PST
by demshateGod
(The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)

It is the sole responsibility of people like the late Nancy Lanza to keep guns out of the hands of unbalanced people. It's been reported that her son had violent outbursts. When she fails, then society has to step in. In this case it should have been armed and trained volunteers (admins and teachers) who would have cut short the rampage, or more likely deterred it altogether.

Easy answers are unrealistic unless one wants confiscation and the associated increase in crimes (other than murder and mass murder) seen in Britain.

I have to disagree with the author. Aspingers syndrome is a much more specific and informative label than "saying he was a shy, socially inept loner", as the author states.

I recently correctly diagnosed a friends 4 year old with Aspergers Syndrome after our first meeting. I noticed that she walked everywhere on her tiptoes, and noted other behavioral quirks that are common to the disease, such as inability to make eye-contact, inappropriate modulation of her voice, abnormal sensitivity to noises.

Most Aspies are smarter than average and are often the first kids to read and know numbers at her age, but are not socialized at anywhere near their age level. The four year old girl I met is still in diapers.

I know there is some battle going on withing the psychology community (which is a very liberal and trendy community given to all manner of progressive nonsense) to delist Aspergers as a syndrome, but it's one of the most obvious and unique congenital mental impairments.

Where do the rights of society begin and the rights of the individual end? A psych class question.
When society can no longer compel medication that help the identified mentally ill function, then the violent rampages against the most vulnerable will continue. Thanks ACLU - not. Obviously not all mentally ill needing medication are going to be violent, but for sure the identified mentally ill not taking their medication have been the source of our national grieving.

17
posted on 12/26/2012 10:56:49 AM PST
by pacpam
(action=consequence and applies in all cases - friend of victory)

Yes I have been warning those who want to blame this on mental health. this is a slippery slope I don’t want to go down... putting our constitutional rights at the mercy of shrinks, judges, politicians, and/or family members.

I would wager that almost all of Adam Lanza’s would-be childhood playmates and fellow students (even though it's reported he was home schooled, that's another story) thought he was a psycho but their parents said “That's bullying! Don't say that, it's mean and uncalled for! He's just different.”

What bothers me the most about this idea is the probability the psych database will be prone to the same problems the NECS has: No way of knowing how you got on the list, no way of knowing how to get off the list if you’re on it (Hint: you can’t), and no way to know if you’re even *on* the list, short of being rejected.

It’s much too secretive for my liking. It’s gun banning by another means.

23
posted on 12/26/2012 11:26:49 AM PST
by Cyber Liberty
(Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)

“In 2012, out of a population of 313 million, just 6 people chose to become mass murderers. That is the proverbial microscopic spec on the point of a needle lost in the biggest haystack youve ever seen.”

An important point for the liberals. The bigger the haystack, the more people you can disqualify from owning guns.

There is also the definition problem. Obama has redefined the official terrorist profile by DHS from Muslim male between 15 and 30 to white, Christian, and concerned with the size of the federal government. Not too hard to redefine mentally ill in light of that.

Finally, combine a mental illness standard with Obamacare. Dept of HHS will have information about every doctor’s visit and psychiatrist visit you make, ever. The secretary of HHS already has the authority to share your information with any “federal, state, or local” government agency, in their discretion. Go to a shrink for anxiety and get put on the no-gun list. Remember, no doctor will be able to practice medicine if they are on the HHS s##tlist. How many will go along to keep their jobs.

gun violence is a political term.
What we need to deal with is VIOLENCE and the fact that we have so many people that see it as a solution to their problems.
The guns that Adam Lanza used had no will of their own. The did not hate Lanza nor any of the 26 other people killed. The guns had no violent intent towards anyone. The hate, the violent intent was all Lanza.

29
posted on 12/26/2012 1:01:56 PM PST
by SECURE AMERICA
(Where can I sign up for the New American Revolution and the Crusades 2012?)

Simple: who is too unbalanced to be on the streets in the first place? The answer nowadays is, unfortunately, a lot of people. They haven’t all turned into mass murderers, yet, but many or them have murdered individuals, particularly family members, or made these people’s lives so miserable and terrified they probably wished they were dead.

That said, most of the nutcases wouldn’t qualify for a permit even now,
and in fact most didn’t have permits or legally owned weapons.

Even under current law, mental illness can become a label for unconventional political beliefs. Remember Brandon Raub, the Marine Corps veteran who was forced to undergo a psychiatric evaluation in Virginia last summer based on his conspiracy-minded, anti-government Facebook posts?

The Soviets jugged and drugged dissidents regularly. Thorazine, you name it -- all administered under color of psychiatric diagnoses that were driven by KGB.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.